Dealing with Aggression and Best Mixing Practices Dr Jennifer Brown - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dealing with Aggression and Best Mixing Practices

Dr Jennifer Brown

Research Scientist- Ethology Prairie Swine Centre

Outline

• Aggression in sows

– When, How and Why?

• Reducing aggression in pens

– Feeding system – Space allowance, pen design

• Reducing aggression at mixing

– Timing, social groupings – Physical barriers

• Relief/Hospital pens

Aggression in Sows

Two main periods where aggression occurs: Mixing Aggression

• Fighting when sows are mixed
• First 48 hrs; establishment of group social order
• Regardless of management system

Ongoing Aggression

• After social order is established
• Competition for resources-
• eg food, feeder access, lying areas
• Varies greatly with management

Why do they fight?

• At mixing- to establish social status/

dominance hierarchy

• What happens in the wild?

Management tools-

• Familiarity, Previous experience, Genetics
• Pen design, feeding, odour, group size/

composition

Why do they fight?

• During gestation- competition for

resources (space, food, drinker)

• What happens in the wild?
• Management tools-
• Feeding system
• Space allowance, Pen layout/design,
• Group size

Feeding system

Free-Access Stalls ESF Shoulder Stalls Floor Feeding

Feeding System

Competitive: gain feed by fighting/aggression

Floor feeding Short stalls (drop feed or trickle)

• Non-competitive: Cannot gain feed by fighting
• Competition for entry to feeding space
• Individual feeding

Feeding system

Free-access or Gated feeding stalls Electronic sow feeder

• New option: Free-access ESF- eg. Gestal

Feeding System

Media Reports

• Beware of system & management differences…
• Eg. National Hog farmer- Transitioning Staff to Pen Gestation

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/facilities/transitioning-staff-pen-gestation Before a farm transitions to group housing, it is best for all employees to mentally prepare that it will be different.

Media Reports- read with care!

National Hog farmer- Transitioning Staff to Pen Gestation Tips for selecting and managing groups: ■ It is important to know which sows not to put into pens ■ No exception: Gilts go with gilts ■ Group the animals by body condition, and keep younger parity sows together ■ It is necessary to take into consideration breed dates and gestation lengths ■ Watch older parity sows that are going into pens for the first time carefully, because you cannot backfill pens or remix pens

• Use caution when seeking information & advice!

Space Allowance

• Important consideration: what can be achieved with existing

barn space?

• Experience shows: do not provide too little space
• Science is lacking: 16 sqft is too small, 24 sq ft is sufficient
• What happens in between???
• EU guidelines: Gilts: 1.64m² (18 sqft) Sows: 2.25m² (24 sqft)
• Groups of < 6 sows; 10% more space
• Groups of > 40 sows; 10% less space
• Code of Practice gives similar recommendations…

Space Allowance

Code of Practice Recommendation: Minimum floor space allowances for gilts and sows

Group type Partial slats Bedded floor m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Gilts 1.4 - 1.7 15 - 18 1.5 – 1.9 16 - 20 Sows 1.8 – 2.2 19 - 24 2.0 – 2.4 21 – 26 Mixed 1.7 – 2.1 18 - 23 1.9 – 2.3 20 - 25

Small groups: larger allowances Large groups: smaller allowances

Space Allowance- Research

Example: Johnstone and Li, 2013

• Documented sow production comparing stalls to

floor feeding (815 sows; parities 1-8)

• Methods:

– Same floor space ‘footprint’ as stalls

• 1.5 m2 (16.1 sq ft)/sow

– Stalls: standard 24” stall (326 sows) – Large pens: 26 sows (13 pens; 338 sows) – Small pens: 6 sows (26 pens; 156 sows)

Space Allowance- Research

• Results: Large pens gave poorest performance,

stalls were best

• No effects on litter size

Stalls Large pens Small pens

Weight gain (kg)

41.5 33.4 39.5

Farrowing rate (%)

98 92 95

Removal rate (%)*

9.2 15.8 11.7

*Removals: due to reproduction (NIP) or mortality

Space Allowance

• Conclusions:
• Sow welfare and performance were reduced in groups
• Inadequate floor space (16 sq ft/sow)

– Code recommends minimum: 19 sq ft

• High drop-outs/removal rate

– Competitive feeding, sows were not sorted by size/parity

• Staff were unfamiliar with group management- skeptical

and unprepared

• A good example of What NOT TO DO!!!

Space Allowance: ideal vs real

• Science considers more space is better

than less

– Concept of physical & social space – Space to move out of the way when required – Space to actively avoid bully sows

• Individually fed sows

– Less aggression and injury occurred when sows kept at 26, than 21 ft²/sow (Weng et al. 1998)

Space Allowance: ideal vs real

• Commercial setting- space costs $$
• important to find break point above which sows

experience adverse effects

– Increased aggression – Increased drop outs: Sows failing to maintain condition – Sows not maintaining pregnancy to term.

Pen Design

The Basics…

• Space allowance
• Feeders and drinkers- ratio, placement
• Layout- avoidance distance, partitions
• Separation of dunging, feeding, resting areas
• Quality of space is as important as quantity
• Pen design is as important for reducing

aggression as pen space (Barnett et al. 1992)

Pen Design- for quality

• Partitions

– Divide pen space to provide options and isolation

• Flooring- solid areas for lying (sloped)

– Encourage correct use of alleys, lying areas – Alternative flooring- rubber mats, slat gap covers

• Enrichment and satiety

– Encourage positive behaviours & reduce negative behaviours – Wood on chain, in holder, fibrous feeds

Pen Design

• Short partition wall, straw rack enrichment

Pen Design

• Solid flooring

Pen Design

• Enrichment & satiety

Group Size

Small groups

• More common with competitive feeding
• From 10 to 30 sows
• Static groups- same stage of gestation
• Smaller groups- allow formation of more

uniform groups (similar size, parity, backfat)

• Uniformity important- sows have similar

needs, can compete equally for feed

Group Size

Large groups

• Common with ESF (not possible with

competitive feeding)

• From 45 to >300 sows
• In large groups- animals adopt more

tolerant behaviours (Samarakone and Gonyou, 2009)

– Dynamic groups can be formed, adding new sub- groups periodically

• Individual feeding- for different parities

– Keeping gilts separate is still recommended!

Mixing Aggression

• Known effects on sow welfare & productivity

(Einarrson et al, 2008; Soede et al, 2007)

– Injury & lameness – Disruption of estrus expression – Impact of stress on conception rate, litter size

• Implantation (1-4 weeks)

– sensitive time for mixing

Reducing Aggression at Mixing

• Timing of mixing
• Group formation- social

– Social experience: Gilt development – Static vs dynamic groups – Uniform vs diverse parities

• Management- physical

– Mixing pens, pen design – Full feeding, odours, boars, time of day

When to mix?

• Aggression commonly occurs when sows are mixed

Most successful times to mix:

• At weaning
• After insemination
• After implantation (approx. 28 days)

– sensitive time for mixing – Following pregnancy check in stalls

Mixing- four weeks after breeding

• Sows commonly mixed at confirmation of

pregnancy (21-35 days)

• Stalls allow close management from breeding to

implantation

• Monitor estrus, feed consumption, BCS, breeding,

preg checking

• Mixing aggression is delayed until after implantation

But:

• Potential for impact on pigs in the pre-natal environment?
• What if stall use becomes more restricted?

Mixing- at Weaning

• At weaning
• Mixing aggression resolved before estrus/implantation
• Evidence that early mixing helps to bring sows onto heat

(Pearce and Hughes, 1992)

• Sow-to-sow contact may help to synchronize estrus

Concerns:

• Estrus behaviour (mounting) may lead to injury & lameness
• Mixing aggression may disrupt return to estrus, or inhibit

estrus expression (eg in subordinate sows)

• Added work- handling sows at breeding, preg checking in

groups

Mixing- after insemination

• After insemination
• Mixing aggression is resolved before implantation
• Saves on space: Renovations- fewer stalls needed

Concerns:

• Mixing must take place shortly after breeding (eg 5 days)
• Li and Gonyou (2013)- mixed at 8 days after insemination
• Farrowing rate was reduced by 5%
• Added work- preg checking in pens
• Solved by adding heat detection units (Eg ESF systems)

PSC Mixing Study

Methods:

• Three treatments, tested over six replicates:

– Early Mixing (EM): Sows mixed directly at weaning – Late Mixing (LM): Sows mixed 35 d after breeding (Control treatment) – Pre-socialization (PS): Sows mixed at weaning for 48hrs, then put in stalls for breeding – Remixed at 35 d

• Collaboration with Dr. Y. Li,

University of Minnesota

PSC Mixing Study

16 stalls 16 stalls

• Free-access stalls- 14 sows/pen
• Gilts and mixed parity sows
• 24 ft2/sow (in loafing area)
• Stalls used for feeding- otherwise locked out

Study pen

Mixing Study: Conception rate (%)

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Early Mixing Late Mixing Pre-socialization

b a b 98 87 94

• LM sows had significantly lower conception
• No difference in returns or sow removals

Mixing Study: Performance

• Fewer stillborn piglets in EM treatment

Treatment

Item Early Mixing Pre Socialization Late Mixing P val Total born 15.2 ± 0.4 15.6 ± 0.4 15.5 ± 0.4

0.700

Born Alive 13.7 ± 0.4 13.3 ± 0.4 13.2 ± 0.5

0.691

Stillborn 0.95a ± 0.12 1.54b ± 0.16 1.58b ± 0.16

0.003

Mummies 0.47 ± 0.09 0.44 ± 0.09 0.53 ± 0.09

0.766

n = 84 sows/ treatment

• Under PSC conditions (adequate space, controlled feeding)
• Early mixing did not affect sow performance
• Better conception and reduced stillborns in EM sows

– Clearer estrus expression/more pronounced heat? – Benefit of early mixing/placental development?

Take-hom

• me message

ge: :

• Producers can select the option that suits their system
• Early

rly mixing xing can reduce space e requiremen uirements ts for barn conversions

• Mixing

ing post st-insemination insemination: : is becom coming ing more common

• n, esp.

combined with heat detection (Research ongoing)

Mixing Study- Conclusions

• Group formation- social

– Social experience: gilt development – Static vs dynamic groups – Uniform vs diverse parities

• Management- physical

– Mixing pens, pen design – Full feeding, odours, boars, time of day

Mixing

Social Experience

Considerations for gilt development:

• Genetic selection for low aggression, and

passive temperament

• Socialized

with other litters by 12 days

• Multiple

movements and mixing events

Static groups

• Beneficial to reduce competition between sows
• Sows of unequal size show less aggression (Arey and

Edwards, 1998)

However…….

• Smaller and thinner sows more risk to be disadvantaged

(Brouns and Edwards, 1994)

• Group by age, size & body condition
• Use time in breeding stalls to even out sow condition
• Be prepared to remove timid/injured/thin sows

Group formation

Small Large Small Small Large Large Low nutrition Breeding cohort Gilts High nutrition

2,400 sow herd 120 sow breeding cohort Groups of 40

Each group sub-divided into groups of 20 animals for better control Divide on nutritional requirements

Physical management

• Dividers to separate pen into

multiple feeding zones

• Distribute feed widely in the pen
• Bulkier diets slow eating and can

increase aggression (Whittaker et al., 1999)

• Provide ad lib (low nutrient) diets
• Provides ability for low ranking sows to

increase intake (Brouns and Edwards, 1994)

• Or, more frequent feed drops
• Sows fed 6 x per day, lower body lesions, fewer leg, feet and

hoof problems (Schneider et al., 2007)

Hospital pens/Relief pens

• Secure place for animals not coping with group

– Thin, bullied, injured sows

• Pens should provide:

– Individual feeding – Ensure sow comfort

• Individual or group pens

– Including stalls i) Relief pen: sow needing extra feed/bullied but well. ii) Hospital pen: Sow requiring medical attention, recovery

Location of hospital pens – close to the gestation pen

Hospital pens - recommendations

5 % 3-5 % 10 %

Hospital and Relief pens

• Recommended 1 – 3% of established gestation

place units are used for relief pens

• i.e. 900 dry sow places, 9 – 27 relief pens
• Hospital pens: 2% extra gestation place units

i.e. 900 dry sow places require 18 hospital pens

• Herd with concern for high drop out recommends:
• 5% allowance for relief pens
• 5% allowance for hospital pens

Acknowledgements

• Many thanks to our funders and collaborators:

National Pork Board

Questions?